femm_set_arc_prop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that max_seg_deg is 'degrees per straight piece' and that air gaps want <= 1, and hints that conductor applies only to non-magnetics problems. However, it says nothing about what happens to existing arc properties, error behavior when no arc is near a point, or mutation intent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the key selection behavior front-loaded and the parameter list following. It is efficient, though mildly run-on and could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and one important parameter semantic, but omits the session parameter and any statement of mutation/overwrite behavior, leaving real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps most fields (points, max_seg_deg, boundary, hide, group, conductor) but only genuinely explains max_seg_deg with the air-gap guidance; the rest are name-only restatements, and the session parameter is entirely absent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (set) and resource (arcs) and clarifies the selection mechanism: 'the arcs nearest each of `points`'. This lets an agent distinguish it from femm_set_segment_prop and femm_set_node_prop, which act on different geometry. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast but is otherwise precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that segments should use femm_set_segment_prop or that points use femm_set_node_prop, nor any preconditions. The only contextual hint is the 'arcs nearest points' phrasing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.